Do I have a legal case?

[shokishoki]

I was stopped from boarding a flight to Switzerland from London by airline personnel who insisted that I required a Swiss visa. I am Nigerian and my wife is English. We were on our way to France for a friend's wedding. I have a HSMP visa valid till 2010 and a valid Schengen visa issued by the French embassy valid till December 2008. We had a printout from the Swiss embassy website stating that Nigerian nationals with valid UK Resident Permits can travel visa free to Switzerland for up to 30 days but the staff refused to accept this. Even our pleas to call Geneva were ignored. I called the Swiss embassy before travelling and was told I did not require a visa and they confirmed this again folowing this awful incident. I feel this is absolutely unjust and would like to know if I have a case against this airline. I want to fight this on principle not for money as my wife and I were treated very shoddily and I hope a court case makes this particular airline sit up and not think they can humiliate legal fee paying passengers simply because they have foreign passports. I know this is a legal question but I just wanted any helpful advice before making the decision to pay the additional costs required to engage a solicitor. Thank you

[paulp]

Before involving sollicitors, why not make a complaint to the airline, explain that you've been financially and emotionally affected because of the incompetence of their check-in staff and ask for compensation?

[netacct]

Yes, chances are hight that if you speak to higher authority in Airline, you will get some compensation... But your case seems to be strong. If it was me, I would first contact the Airline and if that fails then may be some legal stuffs?

[Christophe]

I certainly wouldn't be deterred from pursuing the case: it really is not acceptable that airline check-in and other staff deny passengers boarding on the basis of wrong information, and it is up to the airline to ensure that the staff are aware of the relevant regulations of the destination country and/or that they have access to someone higher up the chain if there is any doubt.

If you do decide to pursue it with the airline first, I wouldn't hesitate to say (in a calm fashion, of course) that you will be seeking legal advice if the airline can't give satisfaction. And don't forget to point out that it's not just the financial loss (which is important); there is also the question of embarrassment at the airport gate (minor, perhaps), emotional upset (again, minor perhaps, though not necessarily), and of course the fact that you (presumably) missed the wedding that you were travelling to.

Do let us know how you get on...

[paulp]

Here, the OP has to balance how much more he thinks he will gain by using a sollicitor over how much he will have to pay in sollicitor fees and possibly court fees if it comes to that.

If the airline makes him a crap offer, sue them.

[shokishoki]

Thank you both for your replies. I wrote to the management of the airline immeditely after this incident and received a curt reply stating that their airport staff are within their rights to refuse to board a passenger if they have reason to suspect the passenger does not hold valid travel documentation. They added that as a "goodwill" gesture they will consider refunding my airfare if I put in a request. I am usually a reasonable bloke and to be truthful my wife has suggested I let this go, however I beg to differ. There are instances in life when you feel you have to take a stand regarding your rights. I travel a lot and will be honest and admit that Nigerian passport holders are generally viewed with a lot of suspicion ( and quite rightly given the antics of a significant minority). However I do not want a "goodwill" gesture for doing absolutely nothing wrong. My question is, are airlines allowed to do this? Is there a legal loophole they can exploit in denying passengers carriage simply on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion"? I am still in a state of anger at what happened and would like advice so I respond in a reasoned and logical manner.

[thsths]

I was stopped from boarding a flight to Switzerland from London by airline personnel who insisted that I required a Swiss visa.

You should claim compensation under the denied bording regulation of the European union. I think you are eligible for 250 Euros each. This may not be a lot for a missed wedding, but it is a good amount of money. And the legal situation is crystal clear.

Just be careful to not get stuck in some "voluntary mediation process". Ask the airline for compensation, and if they do not pay, go directly to the small claims court.

Is there a legal loophole they can exploit in denying passengers carriage simply on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion"?

No, ignorance is not a legal basis to refuse boarding. After all, it is their job to know whether someone may go to Switzerland or not.

Tom

[Christophe]

My question is, are airlines allowed to do this? Is there a legal loophole they can exploit in denying passengers carriage simply on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion"?

I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that even if they can deny boarding on the grounds of "reasonable suspicion", the suspicion in this case was not "reasonable". The Swiss immigration rules are there in black and white, and if people like us can understand them there is no reason why an airline can't understand them too.

One thing a competent lawyer would be able to advise you about, of course, is what the chances of success are if you pursue things beyond the goodwill gesture already offered, what the best way of pursuing the matter is, and (in the event of success) what the compensation might be. It would then be up to you to decide whether or how to proceed. As you know, seeking legal advice doesn't force you to pursue anything further against the airline, and you would have to pay for the advice, but I suspect that in your present (not unreasonable) frame of mind it might be worth spending that initial money.

The fact that the airline has offered the goodwill gesture suggests (but doesn't prove) that they have worked out that you were wrongly denied boarding. After all, if they weren't aware of that, why offer anything.

Have you replied yet to the goodwill offer? If not, it would seem to be reasonable to reply saying thank you, you are seeking legal advice as to your next step, and that you will be in touch in due course (if indeed that is what you are going to do).

[Christophe]

You should claim compensation under the denied bording regulation of the European union.

Does it matter that the destination was outside the EU?

Again, in any case, this is something that a lawyer could advise on, if the OP decides to seek legal advice.

[shokishoki]

My thanks to everyone who has posted a reply. Christophe thanks for your post. Will go with what you have advised. I will not accept their "goodwill" gesture and hope a new letter stating that I intend to seek legal advice elicits a reasonable response from their management. I reckon as others have advised when it comes to the crunch I will need to decide if it's economically worth my while to go to the small claims court if the matter cannot be resolved satisfactorily. Thanks once again to all.

[thsths]

Does it matter that the destination was outside the EU?

No, as long as you start from an EU airport, you are covered. And personally I would save the money for a lawyer, just read up a bit on the subject. The directive is written as clear and precise as you would like all law to be. A small claim is reasonably affordable, and you should be able to claim your fee, the price of the tickets (as long as you booked all legs together) and the compensation. Dealing with the airline or the AUC is probably just a waste of time.

Tom

[shokishoki]

thsths. Thank you. I just did a Google search and I have had a look at the regulation you advised on. I am very interested in pursuing this option but the wording seems to relate to boarding denied on the basis of overbooking or flight delays. Will the regulation cover my particular case. I am just slightly concerned because the reply from the airline was worded "reasonable suspicion". I do not consider their actions reasonable but does the term allow them to escape their obligation to pay compensation as well as a refund in instances such as mine?

[Christophe]

thsths. Thank you. I just did a Google search and I have had a look at the regulation you advised on. I am very interested in pursuing this option but the wording seems to relate to boarding denied on the basis of overbooking or flight delays. Will the regulation cover my particular case. I am just slightly concerned because the reply from the airline was worded "reasonable suspicion". I do not consider their actions reasonable but does the term allow them to escape their obligation to pay compensation as well as a refund in instances such as mine?

Well, at the risk of seeming unduly repetitive, I'd say that their suspicion was not reasonable. "Reasonable suspicion" relates to suspected fraudulent documents, illegible stamps that might have been tampered with, and the like — not to a failure on the part of airline staff to know and apply the rules.

[shokishoki]

My apologies Christophe. I appreciate all the advice. Will draft another letter tonight to the airline management stating that I intend to seek legal advice and I will include a paragraph relating to the EU regulation on denied boarding. I will update the board on the outcome of my case. Thank you everyone especially Christophe and Thsths.

[Christophe]

My apologies Christophe. I appreciate all the advice. Will draft another letter tonight to the airline management stating that I intend to seek legal advice and I will include a paragraph relating to the EU regulation on denied boarding. I will update the board on the outcome of my case. Thank you everyone especially Christophe and Thsths.

Oh don't apologise to me — no offence intended, I'm sure, and no certainly no offence taken. As I said, I was just repeating myself anyway (an irritating trait, so it's probably I who ought to apologise to you).

Good luck with whatever you decide to do!

[Fairtrade]

I am just slightly concerned because the reply from the airline was worded "reasonable suspicion". I do not consider their actions reasonable but does the term allow them to escape their obligation to pay compensation as well as a refund in instances such as mine?

Sue them.. This will make them think twice before discriminating again.

Good luck
Fairtrade

[thsths]

My apologies Christophe. I appreciate all the advice. Will draft another letter tonight to the airline management stating that I intend to seek legal advice and I will include a paragraph relating to the EU regulation on denied boarding.

Personally I think they had their chance, and it is unlikely that you will get a better offer. Anyway, if you want to write another letter, make sure to add up your claim. That is the price of the tickets, twice 250 Euro, and you should also add in any further costs you had (like traveling to the airport). Maybe they will realise that you are serious. And set a deadline, say 10 working days.

I agree completely with Christophe: they did not act in a reasonable way - in fact they got it wrong! Also there was no reason for reasonable suspicion, so you are completely faultless.

[sakura]

I'd just like to add that, as you are probably already doing so, make sure you send everything in writing and try not to engage in telephone (unrecorded) calls with them. All legal matters like this should be in writing, and preferably also recorded delivery.

I am thinking also that maybe an official letter from the Swiss embassy in London might make your case stronger? I do not know if they provide these things, but some embassies offer letters confirming whether or not one needs a visa (France, for example, has this option).

[Frontier Mole]

Erm... sorry to disagree.

Having dealt with the airlines for many years I think you are going to get a big fat NO from them. They are allowed to deny boarding to anyone and everyone for more reasons than there is time to list them.

As for 250 euro's per person - they will reject that out of hand - that is solely to do with over booking etc. It does not cover denial to board for other reasons, drunk, drugged, unruly behaviour, suspect documentation et al.

The phrase "reasonable suspicion" is a lovely woolly expression that covers up a multitude of sins. A scruffy or damaged passport is good enough to deny boarding. Any slight ink blemish, even incomplete immigration stamps or solely the suspicion that your identity is in question is good enough for the carrier to say no. The various and complex air carriers acts & regulations are as about as iron clad as you get. The bottom line -if a carrier does not want you on board there is very little you can do about it. The entire onus is on the carrier and if they do not want to take a passenger on board for just about any reason other than over booking they are free to deny boarding without fear of liability or compensation. The carriers are the ones that get fined if a passenger lands without the appropriate travel documents. Your £100 ticket is of no interest when there could be a $5000 fine at stake!

I am guessing sleazy jet are the carriers! I would dearly like you to win your case but getting anything more than your ticket refunded will be an uphill struggle. I do wish you luck and would like to hear that you have success and all my negativity was unjustified.